The Politics of Water Institutional Reform in Neo-Patrimonial States
A Comparative Analysis of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
1. Auflage
Erschienen am 30. Januar 2009
XVI, 216 Seiten
978-3-531-91377-3 (ISBN)
Beschreibung
"There is more than enough water in the world for domestic purposes, for agriculture and for industry. (.) In short, scarcity is manufactured through political processes and institutions (.). " (United Nations Human Development Report 2006: 3) Water scarcity, water crisis, water wars - since the beginning of the 1990s these terms have appeared again and again in scientific debates, political strategies, and media reports. Water is perceived as a scarce resource that needs efficient management in order to satisfy all needs and to prevent violent conflicts over its distribution. Considerable research has been devoted to this topic. In this research, water is commonly referred to as a common pool resource: a n- excludable public good with rivalry in terms of consumption. Hence, research has long focused on collective action problems in managing this common pool resource (e. g. Ostrom 1990, 1992). In recent years, anthropological and sociological scholars in particular have criticized that in these studies the complexity of water, its embeddedness in a wider cultural and social c- text, and the role of power have been neglected. Water is different from other natural - sources in some important aspects: its mobility, its variability, and its multiplicity (Mehta 2006: 2f; Linton 2006: [10]). Mobility makes ownership claims difficult: Water moves, transcending state borders, not fixed like other resources. Variability refers to the fact that its availability varies temporarily, depending on weather conditions.
Weitere Details
Weitere Ausgaben
Person
Jenniver Sehring is assistant professor at the Department of Comparative Politics at the University of Wuerzburg, Germany.
Inhalt
Water Governance and Water Institutional Reform.- Theoretical Framework: New Institutionalism.- Analytical framework.- Comparative Research Design.- Water Institutional Reforms in Kyrgyzstan.- Water Institutional Reforms in Tajikistan.- Comparing the Politics of Water Institutional Reform.- Conclusion.
6 Water Institutional Reforms in Kyrgyzstan (S. 102-103)
The previous chapter described the framework conditions of water governance in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. How do these affect water institutional reforms, and which reforms are actually decided and implemented? This chapter will portray in detail the water institutional reforms in the Kyrgyz Republic. For an understanding of the processes and interactions of WIR, it is necessary to first give an overview of the administrative structure and key organizational actors in water governance (chapter 6.1).
It is equally important to obtain a general understanding of the general discourse on water in the country and the predominating problem perception (chapter 6.2). After these two more general sections, chapter 6.3 will elaborate on the political process of water institutional reforms: First, the formulation of general policy norms and direction in the National Water Strategy (6.3.1) and the general legal framework (6.3.2) are covered.
After that, the reform programs to reach the objectives outlined in the policy papers are analyzed. These are the administrative reorganization (6.3.3), the introduction of irrigation service fees (6.3.4) and the transfer of local irrigation management (6.3.5). Each section will describe the processes and actors of political decision making and those of implementation with the outcome so far. Chapter 6.4 will then analyze in how far the neopatrimonial context factors have an influence on and can explain the processes and outputs. The final part (6.5) will summarize the findings of the Kyrgyz case study.
6.1 Administrative Structure and Key Actors of Water Governance
Who is formally entitled to decide and implement water policy? Who is actually involved in the processes? In order to assess the role of different actors in water politics in Kyrgyzstan, this chapter will give an overview of the organizations involved in water governance and their competencies.
It must be noted that the structure of water management has changed several times since the country gained its independence, and it changed again shortly after the research period. Partly, these structural reforms will be the object of research (chapter 6.3.3). The given overview aims to include the most important former and actual agencies and competencies, however, due to the constant flux, we can make no claim of full-fledged compilation.
6.1.1 The Water Administration
The highest executive body responsible for the usage and regulation of the water resources in the Kyrgyz Republic is the so-called DepVodKhoz, the Department of Water Management (Departament Vodnogo Khozyajstva) at the Ministry of Agricultural and Water Management and Processing Industries (Ministerstvo Selskogo i Vodnogo Khozajstva i Pererabatyvayushei Promyshlennosti) (see Figure 9). The DepVodKhoz evolved from the former Ministry of Water Management, MinVodKhoz, which was dissolved in 1996 (see chapter 6.3.3.2). It consists of three main sub divisions: The Water Resources and Water Use Department is responsible for the allocation and distribution of water resources. The Irrigation Systems Maintenance Department is in charge of the physical maintenance of the infrastructure. The Department of Economics, Finance, and Registration controls the distribution of financial resources.
The previous chapter described the framework conditions of water governance in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. How do these affect water institutional reforms, and which reforms are actually decided and implemented? This chapter will portray in detail the water institutional reforms in the Kyrgyz Republic. For an understanding of the processes and interactions of WIR, it is necessary to first give an overview of the administrative structure and key organizational actors in water governance (chapter 6.1).
It is equally important to obtain a general understanding of the general discourse on water in the country and the predominating problem perception (chapter 6.2). After these two more general sections, chapter 6.3 will elaborate on the political process of water institutional reforms: First, the formulation of general policy norms and direction in the National Water Strategy (6.3.1) and the general legal framework (6.3.2) are covered.
After that, the reform programs to reach the objectives outlined in the policy papers are analyzed. These are the administrative reorganization (6.3.3), the introduction of irrigation service fees (6.3.4) and the transfer of local irrigation management (6.3.5). Each section will describe the processes and actors of political decision making and those of implementation with the outcome so far. Chapter 6.4 will then analyze in how far the neopatrimonial context factors have an influence on and can explain the processes and outputs. The final part (6.5) will summarize the findings of the Kyrgyz case study.
6.1 Administrative Structure and Key Actors of Water Governance
Who is formally entitled to decide and implement water policy? Who is actually involved in the processes? In order to assess the role of different actors in water politics in Kyrgyzstan, this chapter will give an overview of the organizations involved in water governance and their competencies.
It must be noted that the structure of water management has changed several times since the country gained its independence, and it changed again shortly after the research period. Partly, these structural reforms will be the object of research (chapter 6.3.3). The given overview aims to include the most important former and actual agencies and competencies, however, due to the constant flux, we can make no claim of full-fledged compilation.
6.1.1 The Water Administration
The highest executive body responsible for the usage and regulation of the water resources in the Kyrgyz Republic is the so-called DepVodKhoz, the Department of Water Management (Departament Vodnogo Khozyajstva) at the Ministry of Agricultural and Water Management and Processing Industries (Ministerstvo Selskogo i Vodnogo Khozajstva i Pererabatyvayushei Promyshlennosti) (see Figure 9). The DepVodKhoz evolved from the former Ministry of Water Management, MinVodKhoz, which was dissolved in 1996 (see chapter 6.3.3.2). It consists of three main sub divisions: The Water Resources and Water Use Department is responsible for the allocation and distribution of water resources. The Irrigation Systems Maintenance Department is in charge of the physical maintenance of the infrastructure. The Department of Economics, Finance, and Registration controls the distribution of financial resources.
